When Ambassador Bill White criticized Belgium over the growing attacks against Jewish religious life, many attempted to dismiss his words as excessive or provocative. In reality, his criticism touched a far deeper nerve: the uncomfortable truth that the current prosecution of mohels over Brit Milah is not an isolated legal case, but part of a long historical continuum.
The atmosphere did not emerge overnight.
Only recently, at the beginning of Pesach — one of the holiest moments in the Jewish calendar — Antwerp chose to award an honorary doctorate to a controversial former United Nations official widely accused by Jewish organizations and critics of repeatedly promoting rhetoric perceived as openly hostile toward Israel and insensitive toward Jewish concerns. To many in the Jewish community, the symbolism was striking. At a moment when Jews were celebrating liberation and continuity, Belgium’s academic establishment appeared to honor a figure associated, in their eyes, with persistent hostility toward the Jewish state and Jewish sensitivities.
For many Jews, this did not feel accidental. It felt like yet another signal that antisemitism and anti-Jewish hostility are increasingly normalized in respectable circles.
Then came the attacks on kosher slaughter. Belgium proudly presented the ban as a progressive measure, while ignoring the fact that for observant Jews, shechita is not optional. Jewish leaders warned at the time that once a state begins outlawing core religious practices, other pillars of Jewish life would inevitably come under attack.
They were right.
Next came public discussions about restricting or even outright banning Brit Milah, one of the oldest and holiest rituals in Judaism, dating back to Abraham himself. Now Belgium has reached the stage where prosecutors are targeting mohels — the very individuals entrusted with maintaining the covenant that has preserved Jewish identity for thousands of years.
To many Jews, this no longer feels like a debate about child welfare or ethics. It feels like a systematic attempt to make traditional Jewish life impossible.
Ambassador White understood something that much of the Belgian establishment still refuses to admit: this case is merely the final drop in a bucket already overflowing with historical unresolved antisemitism.
Belgium never fully came clean with its wartime past.
During the Holocaust, Belgian railways transported Jews to deportation camps under Nazi occupation. For every Jew transported, the railways reportedly received payment from the German authorities — approximately four Reichspfennig per kilometer per deported Jew. In today’s value, the total would amount to tens of millions of euros. Yet the debate over full accountability and compensation has remained painfully incomplete.
At the same time, Belgian museums still contain more than a thousand artworks looted from Jewish victims during the war. Decades after the Holocaust, many families continue waiting for proper restitution, transparency, or justice. Europe speaks endlessly about memory, remembrance, and “never again,” yet concrete unresolved questions remain hanging on museum walls.
The deeper historical pattern is impossible to ignore.
In the Middle Ages, Jews across the Low Countries were restricted, segregated, expelled, or persecuted under legal and religious pretexts. In modern times came collaboration during the Nazi occupation and the deportation of more than 25,000 Jews from Belgium to death camps.
Even today, Jewish schools in Antwerp and Brussels require military protection. Synagogues are guarded behind concrete barriers. Orthodox Jews regularly report harassment simply for wearing visible Jewish clothing in public.
Then came the 2014 terror attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels, where four innocent people were murdered by an Islamist extremist. Belgium promised vigilance. Belgium promised solidarity.
Yet instead of strengthening Jewish confidence, Belgian society repeatedly reopens debates over whether Jews should still be allowed to practice Judaism in its traditional form at all.
That is why the prosecution of mohels carries such symbolic weight.
Defenders of these measures insist that “this is not antisemitism.” But history teaches Jews that hostility rarely begins with openly declared hatred. It begins with restrictions. With legal technicalities. With moral justifications. With the slow normalization of the idea that Jewish practices are somehow incompatible with modern society.
A country that bans kosher slaughter, debates outlawing circumcision, prosecutes mohels, leaves unresolved questions about wartime responsibility, still struggles with restitution of Jewish property, and repeatedly sends hostile symbolic signals to its Jewish community cannot simply wave away accusations of structural antisemitism.
Ambassador White’s remarks therefore deserve serious reflection, not outrage.
Because for many Belgian Jews, this case is not the beginning of a problem.
It is the moment the accumulated weight of history finally became impossible to ignore.
I was calmly eating my Belgian fries—perhaps one of Europe’s last undisputed contributions to world civilization—while watching the Flemish channel VTM. The sun was shining, the sky was clear, and that of course meant it was time for a national ritual: discussing climate change on television.
Because nothing pairs better with a warm, dry day than a panel of concerned experts explaining why everything is actually getting worse.
The news anchor, with the appropriate dose of mild existential concern, asked the question of the day: Why is Europe warming faster than other continents? A fair question. You would expect a complex answer about ocean currents, atmospheric dynamics, or perhaps decades of industrial legacy.
Instead, the explanation took a turn that nearly cost me my appetite.
According to the expert, Europe’s enthusiastic green policies may have… unintended side effects. Fewer emissions mean fewer particles in the air—particles that used to reflect sunlight and thus formed a kind of atmospheric “shield.” In other words: by cleaning the air, we may also be removing a protective layer against the sun.
At that moment, my fries became secondary. I was witnessing a philosophical paradox unfolding live on television: Europe, in its moral quest to save the planet, may be making itself more vulnerable to exactly what it is trying to combat.
You would almost expect a Nobel Prize for irony.
And so we naturally arrive at the thought experiment of the day. If fewer emissions reduce that protective layer, then the often-criticized “Drill Baby Drill” philosophy might deserve reconsideration—not as environmental damage, but as… climate management.
Absurd? Certainly. But no more absurd than pretending that complex systems respond linearly to idealistic policies.
After all, Nobel Prizes have been awarded for raising awareness about global warming. By that logic, one might almost expect that someone like Donald Trump would at least receive a nomination for proposing counterbalances—however controversial. When one side of the debate is treated as untouchable doctrine, the other side quickly begins to look like heresy… until reality asserts itself.
Because here lies the uncomfortable truth: nature does not follow ideology.
In life, and apparently also in the environment, everything revolves around balance. Push too far—whether toward unchecked industrialization or toward uncompromising green orthodoxy—and the system reacts. Not with applause, but with correction.
When policy becomes religion, nuance is the first casualty. And nature, unlike voters, does not negotiate. It restores equilibrium.
Perhaps that is the real lesson, somewhere between a portion of fries and a television debate: environmental policy is not about purity. Not about absolutism. Not about moral superiority.
It is about balance.
And balance, by definition, requires more than one force.
Which may well be the most uncomfortable conclusion of all.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Receive Breaking News
Sign up for our newsletter and stay up to date! Be the first to receive the latest news in your mailbox: